User talk:Uncle uncle uncle

Comment or Not

Hagerman Bot

I am being stalked by The Hagerman Bot Uncle uncle uncle 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Ward Churchill

OK, I've taken a look at the page and picture in question. You certainly have a point about the verifiability of the source: although WP:V and WP:RS contain no specific guidelines about images, I would say that one editor's assertion of the origin of the drawing does not satisfy WP:V's rules on dubious and/or self-published sources. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it seems that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violated WP:CIVIL in accusing you of "random destruction". Not that I'm necessarily saying the image should be removed, but I think you have a valid point as per WP policy. If it would help, I will contact the user in question and try to negotiate a compromise; the next step would be a request for comment on the page, and possibly a strawpoll. Please tell me (on my AMA desk, not my talkpage) whether you find this an acceptable plan. Walton monarchist89 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing

In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the [1] page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.

Hello Uncle, I've had the chance to read your reply on the Talk:Ward Churchill page and I thought you made some good points. I appreciate your focusing on the specifics of the policy. I am putting together a comment or two but I have some things going on right now that I have to pay attention to. I'll try to post it in the next couple of days or so. Thanks for your patience, cheers! Cafe Irlandais 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Ward Churchill case

Hi, sorry I took so long to get back to you, I've been very busy both on WP and in RL. You did the right thing in going to RfC; the lack of comments from outside editors is unfortunate. The next thing you should do, since the RfC doesn't seem to have resolved matters, is start a strawpoll, i.e. a brief survey of users' views on the issue. It looks like the general consensus on the page is generally on your side and against LotLE, so the strawpoll should be helpful to you. If you like, I'll set up the strawpoll on the page myself. (After that, if the dispute isn't resolved, the next step is to take it to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, but hopefully it isn't a serious enough dispute to go that far.) Walton monarchist89 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking for an update

Hi, just out of interest, was the Ward Churchill image issue resolved amicably in the end? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

wikinews: is acceptable ref?

Look at it as a wikilink to another article, rather than an extenal reference. When we write, e.g., "the collapse of the Soviet Union followed perestroika", we don't demand a reference for this fact, becase the wikilinked articles contain sufficient amount of references. The wikinews article about pope's mishap contains a summarized description of the event, as well as several newspaper references, i.e., there is no wikipedia:Verifiability problem. A general common sense rule is to demand and include external references only into the articles most immediately and specifically dedicated to the subject in question. Otherwise wikipedia will turn into a huge pile of references, duplicated everywhere. `'mikka 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Kelly Martin

Hi - please don't edit people's userpages without their permission, it's generally not the done thing. If you have some issue with Kelly Martin's userpage content, please take it up with her on her talk page - this would probably be the courteous thing to do. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, your justification is misguided. Aside from the section you cite being in dispute, it actually quite narrowly defines an "attack site" as that which (maliciously) publishes private information of a Wikipedians' identity. Kelly's blog clearly not such a site.--cj | talk 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a nonsense to suggest that there's such a rule. The issue here is simply what constitutes an "attack site". Because the relevant section is in dispute, it is necessary to consider an attack site within the bounds of the ArbCom's ruling and aside from the rest of the policy:

The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [2] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

It is fine that you consider an attack site to constitute anything containing what normally would be considered a personal attack on-wiki, but at the present time, the only clear-cut definition is the ArbCom's ruling. It is inappropriate, IMV, to enforce anything else. --cj | talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

CJ's advice on this matter is most astute - I suggest you take it. I know that you were acting in good faith, for what it's worth. Regards, – Riana ⁂ 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unionoida vs Unionidae

I am not a biologist either, so I could be wrong. I think I've been staring at the computer screen for too long. Please change it back if I've redirected in error. ... discospinster _talk 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxy users

I don't know all the editors using TOR proxies, and don't see any reason to reveal the editors who I do know using them. The issue is only relevant in this case because the person in question was running for adminship while violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)